If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Law 13.4.4: Is this obstructing an opponent?

We were playing doubles at a local gym. I was in the front and shuttle fell below the net level in opponent's court. Anticipating a lift, I raised my racket. He lifted the shuttle and to everyone's surprise the shuttle hit my racket and went to opponent's side. Opponent stopped the play saying it's fault.

13.4.4: obstructs an opponent, i.e. prevents an opponent from making a legal stroke where the shuttle is followed over the net;Note that your opponent is allowed to put his racket in the path of the shuttle. He is not allowed to block your stroke, but he is allowed to block your shot. Itís a subtle distinction: your stroke is the movement of your racket; your shot is the movement of the shuttle.

All 4 players agreed that my racket was well within my side of the court. Since my opponent lifted a shuttle that was well below the net level, his follow through would have never crossed over to my side where it would have collided with my racket that was over 2 feet above the net on my side of the court.

his follow through would have never crossed over to my side where it would have collided with my racket that was over 2 feet above the net on my side of the court.

Ok so the guy was well below net level and at the net and your racket was only 2 feet above the net and you were at the net. If he played a lift how on earth did you intercept it? Assuming everything you have said is correct you must have been hovering your racket above his shot? did you make contact with the shuttle on your side of the net??

It is legal if somehow what he described was correct. The physics behind it though, I'm not sure, but if he says he didn't reach over, and somehow he blocked the shot without obstructing, then it's a legal shot.

Ok so the guy was well below net level and at the net and your racket was only 2 feet above the net and you were at the net. If he played a lift how on earth did you intercept it? Assuming everything you have said is correct you must have been hovering your racket above his shot? did you make contact with the shuttle on your side of the net??

Yes. I made the contact on my side of the net. All players agreed to this. He took the shuttle below the net level but it was not a tight net shot like you are imagining. He was actually lifting to the back and had the room to do so. Sorry about the confusion.

Yes. I made the contact on my side of the net. All players agreed to this. He took the shuttle below the net level but it was not a tight net shot like you are imagining. He was actually lifting to the back and had the room to do so. Sorry about the confusion.

No problem, I got that he was lifting to the back it was just if he was at the net lifting(well below net level) to the back and you were at the net how did you intercept it? If he was a good bit away from the net when lifting i can see how you could if it was a flattish lift but then there would be no question of obstruction.

I don't think that's the correct rule to apply here. During the olympics some players also did what you had done and they got a fault called from the umpire. It's because you are not returning using a stroke or whatever but rather just block/obstruct it with your racket. I don't know which rule specifically but the umpire in the olympics themselves called it fault. So i'm quite sure your action was a fault, the pro players themselves got the point given away because of that.

To my understanding, what the rule means is that if you lift your racket after your opponent's racket touched the shuttle, then it's considered a block. Otherwise what you did was a fault since you were only waiting for the shuttle on your side with your racket up, and that's exactly what the olympic players did in London.

Like I have stated above, physics aside, it is a legal shot. It was part of my national level umpiring exam. You are not obstructing(blocking) your opponents' shot in any way. You are also not distracting your opponents' shot. He is allowed to play any shot he/she wants (is capable of). So therefore neither rules have been broken.

Unlike when the shuttle is above the net and leaving your racket there, you are not allowing your opponent a full follow through of their shot, which is why it's considered obstructing.

However, if you were standing there waving your racket around crazily, it could be considered distracting and be called a fault then. Otherwise this shot is totally legal.

Otherwise, you are claiming that if I were to stand still (near the middle of the court) and hold my racket up, doing nothing, while my opponent is going to smash, it ricochets off my racket and over the net would be considered illegal since I am not returning the shuttle, just "blocking" it.

I don't think that's the correct rule to apply here. During the olympics some players also did what you had done and they got a fault called from the umpire. It's because you are not returning using a stroke or whatever but rather just block/obstruct it with your racket. I don't know which rule specifically but the umpire in the olympics themselves called it fault. So i'm quite sure your action was a fault, the pro players themselves got the point given away because of that.

To my understanding, what the rule means is that if you lift your racket after your opponent's racket touched the shuttle, then it's considered a block. Otherwise what you did was a fault since you were only waiting for the shuttle on your side with your racket up, and that's exactly what the olympic players did in London.

Like I have stated above, physics aside, it is a legal shot. It was part of my national level umpiring exam. You are not obstructing(blocking) your opponents' shot in any way. You are also not distracting your opponents' shot. He is allowed to play any shot he/she wants (is capable of). So therefore neither rules have been broken.

Unlike when the shuttle is above the net and leaving your racket there, you are not allowing your opponent a full follow through of their shot, which is why it's considered obstructing.

However, if you were standing there waving your racket around crazily, it could be considered distracting and be called a fault then. Otherwise this shot is totally legal.

Otherwise, you are claiming that if I were to stand still (near the middle of the court) and hold my racket up, doing nothing, while my opponent is going to smash, it ricochets off my racket and over the net would be considered illegal since I am not returning the shuttle, just "blocking" it.

Thanks for that clarification. I need to go back and look at videos again. Sometimes the umpires do give a fault, when a player just holds a racquet up and the shuttle bounces off it. I often wonder why but need to find the right example to reference to.

I think a good clarification for this (not sure what is on your course cantsmashthis) but if the attacker is playing an "overhead"(above or level with net) shot at the net, then the receiver can't hold his racket up anywhere within a rackets length of the net (because your racket could, in theory follow the shuttle over about 60cm). I can't physically see how the rule can be applied if an "underarm" shot is being played as it would be impossible for the racket to follow through over the net if it were "underarm"(below net level).

So the fact is when playing a "net kill" even though nobody actually follows through 60cm over the net, they are entitled to and if you are stopping this as an option, by holding your racket in the way then it must be called fault.

We were playing doubles at a local gym. I was in the front and shuttle fell below the net level in opponent's court. Anticipating a lift, I raised my racket. He lifted the shuttle and to everyone's surprise the shuttle hit my racket and went to opponent's side. Opponent stopped the play saying it's fault.

So the fact is when playing a "net kill" even though nobody actually follows through 60cm over the net, they are entitled to and if you are stopping this as an option, by holding your racket in the way then it must be called fault.

true. but theres more to the story. its not just if they are entitled to. its if they were likely to. it depends on how far away the person doing the net kill is and if it was possible to follow through if they wanted to. if you did a net kill at full stretch jumping from the behind the serve line, there is little likelyhood that you could follow through with a full racket length, so the oponent is allowed to block the shot closer to the net. if you are already right up against then net and do a net kill, you now have the possibility of following through, so the opponent arguably cannot block so close.

and this is the trouble. there is human judgment involved in deciding if a stoke 'could have' followed through and got blocked.